PROMPT: Chapter 10 of Exploring Leadership discusses Albert Bernstein’s and Sydney Rozen’s concept of Sacred Bulls, which are defined as statements that prevent people from reaching their potential as members of corporate organizations. The authors go on to state that a sacred bull is a metaphor for an assumption we make and do not question. “They are the ideas that nobody checks or questions, because ‘we’ve always done it this way’” (p.7, Bernstein & Rozen, 1994).
- What are some sacred bulls used by you and other members of your organization? These could be related to tasks and projects, meeting culture, who has power, the practice of blaming and pointing fingers, etc.
- How can you reframe these sacred bulls in ways that will positively affect your membership or leadership in an organization? What can you try, who will need to be on board, and how do you begin the change process related to those things that are so ingrained in your group’s culture?
Dig deep on this one. Think about what sacred bulls are really holding you and your group back.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yesterday was "Senior Day" at the Ohio State Women's Basketball game, marking the last home game for all of the program's graduating seniors (as well as another victory over that dreadful team from up north). Although my illustrious career as a student manager is coming to an end, I think is fitting to discuss the sacred bulls that I have encountered as a part of this group.
To be honest, our "team" of managers (and in some ways, the program as a whole) has proven to be an extremely dysfunctional group at times, due in large part to the sacred bulls that exist. I can't tell you how many times I've asked a question about why we do something a certain way and the response I receive is, "that's how we've always done it." Seriously, that's all you can come up with? For me, there is no possible response that is more frustrating than this one.
There are several "sacred bulls" that I would like to address, but I will choose just two of them for the sake of all you readers...
1) The idea of seniority/longest tenured: In our program, those who have been with the team the longest and those who are juniors or seniors are held in higher regard than their fellow managers. They are often awarded the title of "head managers", selected to travel with the team to away games, given more logistical responsibilities, and usually rewarded with a stipend or other benefits. The idea of giving more responsibility to or rewarding the oldest/longest-tenured members is not necessarily a bad thing all the time. There are plenty of occasions when an older manager's experiences are beneficial, or even required, to complete certain tasks or activities. However, this is not always the case. There are numerous examples of times when a younger manager's specific skills or abilities make him/her more adept at leading peers, handling logistical tasks, etc. The other issue with using both seniority and number-of-years-with-the-team as determinants for duties and rewards is when these two factors clash with each other. For example, it is not uncommon for a junior manager to have been with the team for three years and a senior manager to have been with the team for two years. What do you do then? Which factor takes precedence? In our program, the advantage is usually given first to the manager who has been with the team the longest, then to the one with seniority if a "tie" exists; however, if these norms are changed without notice or there is variation in how much these two factors are weighed in decision making, controversy is almost a guarantee. If the biases of the head managers or supervisor begin to influence decisions, or if there is simply a change in the way things are being done but no explanation is given to the invested parties, there are going to be some problems.
2) The blame game: Another common issue that I've experienced as a manager is deflection of responsibility/accountability and the blaming of specific individuals rather than accepting blame as a team. I think this problem stems from two places. Firstly, we divide a lot of our tasks into individual components, giving specific duties to each manager. Doing this usually means that we are working separately on tasks, rather than working together to make sure things get done promptly and properly. Secondly, the high-intensity nature of intercollegiate athletics has a lot of people on-edge about their jobs. The coaches and professional staff are all under a significant amount of pressure to preform, and a lot of that pressure gets passed down to the managers. When something goes wrong, managers are usually asked why and expected to instantly have an answer or a solution. The reality is, however, that we are just students assistants and usually don't have all the necessary information to answer these questions or demands. Also, because we see how much pressure everyone around us is under, we fear being the one that "screwed up" because we never know what the consequence might be. Nobody wants to be blamed for something going wrong, especially because these mishaps usually aren't completely our fault or circumstances aren't completely under our control.
**I apologize if my explanations are vague. I am trying to be as informative as possible without giving away too many details from specific incidents.**
There are several "sacred bulls" that I would like to address, but I will choose just two of them for the sake of all you readers...
1) The idea of seniority/longest tenured: In our program, those who have been with the team the longest and those who are juniors or seniors are held in higher regard than their fellow managers. They are often awarded the title of "head managers", selected to travel with the team to away games, given more logistical responsibilities, and usually rewarded with a stipend or other benefits. The idea of giving more responsibility to or rewarding the oldest/longest-tenured members is not necessarily a bad thing all the time. There are plenty of occasions when an older manager's experiences are beneficial, or even required, to complete certain tasks or activities. However, this is not always the case. There are numerous examples of times when a younger manager's specific skills or abilities make him/her more adept at leading peers, handling logistical tasks, etc. The other issue with using both seniority and number-of-years-with-the-team as determinants for duties and rewards is when these two factors clash with each other. For example, it is not uncommon for a junior manager to have been with the team for three years and a senior manager to have been with the team for two years. What do you do then? Which factor takes precedence? In our program, the advantage is usually given first to the manager who has been with the team the longest, then to the one with seniority if a "tie" exists; however, if these norms are changed without notice or there is variation in how much these two factors are weighed in decision making, controversy is almost a guarantee. If the biases of the head managers or supervisor begin to influence decisions, or if there is simply a change in the way things are being done but no explanation is given to the invested parties, there are going to be some problems.
2) The blame game: Another common issue that I've experienced as a manager is deflection of responsibility/accountability and the blaming of specific individuals rather than accepting blame as a team. I think this problem stems from two places. Firstly, we divide a lot of our tasks into individual components, giving specific duties to each manager. Doing this usually means that we are working separately on tasks, rather than working together to make sure things get done promptly and properly. Secondly, the high-intensity nature of intercollegiate athletics has a lot of people on-edge about their jobs. The coaches and professional staff are all under a significant amount of pressure to preform, and a lot of that pressure gets passed down to the managers. When something goes wrong, managers are usually asked why and expected to instantly have an answer or a solution. The reality is, however, that we are just students assistants and usually don't have all the necessary information to answer these questions or demands. Also, because we see how much pressure everyone around us is under, we fear being the one that "screwed up" because we never know what the consequence might be. Nobody wants to be blamed for something going wrong, especially because these mishaps usually aren't completely our fault or circumstances aren't completely under our control.
**I apologize if my explanations are vague. I am trying to be as informative as possible without giving away too many details from specific incidents.**
Solutions: To be honest, I know I don't have the perfect solution to these problems. If I did, I would have been able to fix some of these ingrained issues during the two years I spent with the program. I know that in order to successfully reframe these sacred bulls, ALL of the student managers would need to be on board. Currently, there is a bit of a divide between some of the managers because 1) there is a distinct separation between those who assist with film editing and those who do not and 2) some of the managers' personalities severely clash with each other, causing a number of personal conflicts. Having our supervisor, the Director of Basketball Operations, and the rest of the coaching staff on the same page would certainly be helpful as well because, truthfully, these professional members are the ones with the ultimate decision-making power and serve as the constant figure over the years as managers come and go from the program.
I spent the majority of my first year trying to understand how things worked, what I should/should not be doing, and the group norms of the 8-10 managers. I guess that is another sacred bull I forgot to mention--we do a poor job of acclimating new-comers to the requirements and expectations of being a student-manager. Anyway, I tried to discuss some of these issues on an individual basis, I tried bringing them up in a group at our monthly managers' meetings (which we haven't had since November or so), and I tried talking to my supervisor about them. I learned something from all of these attempts, and it was something I had never experienced before. I learned that this program was completely closed to the idea of implementing change....As I mentioned above, it's a "that's how it's always been" organization. Now, I have certainly encountered resistance to change as a two-time member of TKE's executive board, but never before had I been flat out denied when trying to make improvements to the functionality of my group. I was stunned, and fairly discouraged. I eventually learned to deal with my situation (maybe a bit begrudgingly), learning that not everyone or every group is as open to change as I would like. I am sure, however, that this will prove to be a valuable lesson for my future. I doubt that I will go through the rest of my life without encountering another group that is as opposed to change as this one was. Hopefully this experience will have me better prepared to deal with this type of situation and next time, I will come out a bit more successful.
I spent the majority of my first year trying to understand how things worked, what I should/should not be doing, and the group norms of the 8-10 managers. I guess that is another sacred bull I forgot to mention--we do a poor job of acclimating new-comers to the requirements and expectations of being a student-manager. Anyway, I tried to discuss some of these issues on an individual basis, I tried bringing them up in a group at our monthly managers' meetings (which we haven't had since November or so), and I tried talking to my supervisor about them. I learned something from all of these attempts, and it was something I had never experienced before. I learned that this program was completely closed to the idea of implementing change....As I mentioned above, it's a "that's how it's always been" organization. Now, I have certainly encountered resistance to change as a two-time member of TKE's executive board, but never before had I been flat out denied when trying to make improvements to the functionality of my group. I was stunned, and fairly discouraged. I eventually learned to deal with my situation (maybe a bit begrudgingly), learning that not everyone or every group is as open to change as I would like. I am sure, however, that this will prove to be a valuable lesson for my future. I doubt that I will go through the rest of my life without encountering another group that is as opposed to change as this one was. Hopefully this experience will have me better prepared to deal with this type of situation and next time, I will come out a bit more successful.
6 of the 8 managers before our game at Northwestern...happy as clams :)
No comments:
Post a Comment